“I’d go back and kill bush”

Little Green Footballs has video of Cindy Sheehan stating that she’d like to go back in time and kill George W. Bush as a baby to stop stop what he’s done today.

(No mention of her bogus hunger strike. What a joke that is/was.)

But getting back to the point at hand, is it just me or is that suggestion flawed on far too many levels. It makes no sense at all, it only confirms the lunacy she is engaged in.

9/11 was a terrorist attack, the largest so far in a ongoing series. These attacks are from the terrorist group Al-Qaeda, a “is an armed Sunni lslamist terrorist organization”.

Bush responded to these attacks by first supporting and strengthening the opposition in Afghanistan to rid the country of the Taliban, then by moving onto an invasion of the next most threatening terrorist state, Iraq.
Question 1: is Cindy suggesting that Al-Qaeda would not have started if George W. Bush was not born? Let us assume the answer is in the negative, given the separation (Texas v. Middle East etc).

Question 2: are the “terrible things” Bush is supposed to have done due to his failure to stop terrorist attacks? Could these have been stopped by another Republican president, say, McCain or Gore? Possible, but not likely.
Question 3: Had Bush not been born, would Iraq have been invaded? This is the real point that Sheehan is raising.

Unfortunately, she’s wrong.

9/11 changed the way America looked at the world. They could no longer assume threats would stay “just threats”, as the attacks demonstrated that the difference between making threats and carrying them out was very much smaller than previously thought.

Thus, given Iraq, a country said by every intelligence agency to have weapons of mass destruction (and reported to have used them by every news agency) , was always going to be on the hit list.

It’s a little known fact, but Clinton would have invaded Iraq. The plans were drawn up and ready to go, but a certain intern make it politically difficult to carry out. Make no mistake, Iraq was on the mind of both the incoming Bush and outgoing Clinton administrations.

So yes, the Iraq war would have happened. It might have happened differently, but it still would have happened, and Allied lives would have been lost, and moonbats would still have protested.

So why, given the facts outlined above, would anyone want to kill an innocent baby?


  1. Read some books, look at what’s happening. Your opinion has no substantial facts to back it up. You cannot say Gore or any other President would have done the same.

    Bush has made the world hate America, thus putting the country in a great deal of danger.

    I’m no tree hugger, but ‘might is right’ has repercussions, even if they are years later… when one of the iraqi/afgani orphans who’s family was killed by American troops takes vengance.

    Violance is for the weak.

  2. “I’m no tree hugger, but ‘might is right’ has repercussions, even if they are years later… ”

    Yea, we’re still paying for the Crusades apparently. I’m actually a fan of the theory that we’re still paying for Carter’s weekness.

    “You cannot say Gore or any other President would have done the same.”
    I think the fact that Gore, Kerry and (Hillary) Clinton are on record with very convincing pro-iraq war speeches testifies otherwise. Also the plans Clinton drew up for an invasion.

    Do your books quote those? I bet they don’t tell you who Iraq sold its first oil to after the invasion.

    I will be digging the speeches up at some stage, but you can see I’m quite busy with local stuff (we’ve just been declared a banana republic).

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: